Washington, DC--With much attention paid this election year on the growing role of small donors in the presidential race, a new study shows that small contributors in Arizona's publicly financed gubernatorial campaigns represent communities that are more racially, ethnically, economically, and geographically diverse as compared to big money donors to privately financed campaigns.

Public Campaign's study, "All Over the Map: Small Donors Bring Diversity to Arizona's Elections," examines the $5 qualifying contributions collected by Arizona gubernatorial candidates in the 2002 and 2006 elections, comparing and contrasting them with contributions raised by candidates running with funding from private sources--more than 67,000 contributions in all. The study than analyzes these data by zip code alongside U.S. Census data to determine the racial, ethnic, geographic, and economic characteristics of these donors.

Under Arizona's Clean Elections law, candidates qualify to receive public funding for their campaigns by collecting a set number of $5 contributions from residents of the state. Once qualified, they must abide by strict spending limits and can no longer raise any private money for their campaign.

"Arizona's Clean Elections candidates build strong campaigns based on support from all neighborhoods--even the modest ones," said Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign. "They're not forced to spend all their time seeking out well heeled donors who can afford to give thousand dollar contributions. This study shows Clean Elections has enhanced the power of small donors across the board."

In nearly every category analyzed, Clean Elections $5 donors more accurately represent the diversity of the state than big donors in the private system do. Key findings include:

• Racial and Ethnic diversity. Areas where Latino populations are concentrated provide more contributions from Clean Elections small donors than they do to privately funded campaigns. Clean Elections candidates collected twice as much, proportionately, of their contributions from zip codes with the highest percentages of Hispanics than did privately funded candidates. [See chart] Zip codes with the highest percentages of American Indians in the state also provided more contributions, proportionately, for Clean Elections candidates than for privately funded candidates. [See chart]

• Income. Clean Elections small donors are drawn from populations on the lower and middle parts of the income scale as compared to big donors giving to privately funded candidates. Privately funded candidates received 62 percent of their contributions from zip codes where median household incomes were more than $50,000, nearly double the 32 percent figure for Clean Elections candidates.[See chart]

• Home value. Clean Elections candidates collected more of their contributions, proportionately, from areas where housing prices are lower than privately funded candidates. The most extreme contrast was in zip codes where median home values were $200,000 and above. Here, privately funded candidates collected 3.4 times more of their contributions, proportionately, than Clean Elections candidates did. [See chart]

• Female-headed Households. Areas with higher levels of female-headed households are more widely represented among Clean Elections small donors than they are by big donors to privately funded campaigns. The pattern was most dramatic at the extremes. In zip codes where the concentration of female-headed households was seven percent or higher, the scenario was almost exactly reversed. Clean Elections candidates raised more than 2.3 times as much, proportionately, from these zip codes as privately funded candidates did. [See chart]

• Rural versus urban. Rural areas are more widely represented by Clean Elections small donors than they are by big donors to privately funded campaigns. While all the candidates collected more of their contributions from urban areas, Clean Elections candidates collected 1.5 times as much, proportionately, from zip codes with higher rural populations, 15.7 percent of their contributions, versus 10.5 percent. [See chart]

To read the full report, click here.